I agree. To me, as a someone who has no background in legal matters, this is a flagrant copyright violation. The breweries are using a brand developed by someone else to sell their beer.

Absolutely right. They haven't got a prayer... the product may have been birthed in a fictional world, but the name and concept is the intellectual property of 20th Fox and provable as such, and these guys stole it plain and simple. After 20+ years on the air (the longest running sitcom in broadcast history), "The Simpsons" is an international brand in and of itself, which these clowns are blatantly trading on.

As to what the courts in Columbia will have to say about it...well, THAT should be interesting to watch. But the brothers will most probably lose...and frankly, they deserve to.

+ 2

I see this beer, as well as people wearing t-shirts with the logo, all over the place here in Italy (and the Simpsons is hugely popular here). I've seen it so much, that I assumed that it was approved by Fox. I had no idea that it wasn't. I think the Duff Beer name, and especially the logo being exact, is a copyright violation. It's pretty clear they're cashing in on the popularity of the Simpsons. I've been curious to try the beer, but I would think it's pretty mediocre, given it's mass marketing and the use of the "Simpsons" schtick. That's probably the only thing that really sells the beer.

This beer is predominately sold in Europe (and not at all sold in the US) for that reason - avoiding copyright law.

One thing however that they have not taken into account (and that the French and other governments are looking at) is that in most countries in Europe it is illegal to use imagery traditionally associated with children (i.e., cartoons) to sell adult products like beer and cigarettes. So while it's for sale now, it will likely go away quite soon because the Simpsons is a cartoon, watched by children.

Of course when I was a kid, I wasn't allowed to watch the Simpsons, but that's another story.

BTW I've had this beer several times. It isn't bad. It's a basic corn/rice/malt lager, tasting similar to Bud. If it wasn't more expensive than Bud I would not have a problem having some in my fridge. But then again the nearest fresh craft beer is either a few thousand miles away, or much too expensive for regular every day drinking, between 4 eur and 25 eur/ bottle.

This beer is predominately sold in Europe (and not at all sold in the US) for that reason - avoiding copyright law.

One thing however that they have not taken into account (and that the French and other governments are looking at) is that in most countries in Europe it is illegal to use imagery traditionally associated with children (i.e., cartoons) to sell adult products like beer and cigarettes. So while it's for sale now, it will likely go away quite soon because the Simpsons is a cartoon, watched by children.

Of course when I was a kid, I wasn't allowed to watch the Simpsons, but that's another story.

BTW I've had this beer several times. It isn't bad. It's a basic corn/rice/malt lager, tasting similar to Bud. If it wasn't more expensive than Bud I would not have a problem having some in my fridge. But then again the nearest fresh craft beer is either a few thousand miles away, or much too expensive for regular every day drinking, between 4 eur and 25 eur/ bottle.

well phil, the nearest fresh craft beer is in your back shed isn't it?

It won't fly. In the 1990s Lion Nathan brewery in Australia produced a Duff beer and Fox took them to court there. The product was ordered to be pulled from store shelves and destroyed. And Lion did not use the Simpsons Duff Beer logo. The cans became big collector's items. Same thing happened in New Zealand.

Logged

"Brewing beer to save money makes as much sense as buying a boat to cut costs on a fish dinner." -- Tim French

This beer is predominately sold in Europe (and not at all sold in the US) for that reason - avoiding copyright law.

One thing however that they have not taken into account (and that the French and other governments are looking at) is that in most countries in Europe it is illegal to use imagery traditionally associated with children (i.e., cartoons) to sell adult products like beer and cigarettes. So while it's for sale now, it will likely go away quite soon because the Simpsons is a cartoon, watched by children.

Of course when I was a kid, I wasn't allowed to watch the Simpsons, but that's another story.

BTW I've had this beer several times. It isn't bad. It's a basic corn/rice/malt lager, tasting similar to Bud. If it wasn't more expensive than Bud I would not have a problem having some in my fridge. But then again the nearest fresh craft beer is either a few thousand miles away, or much too expensive for regular every day drinking, between 4 eur and 25 eur/ bottle.

well phil, the nearest fresh craft beer is in your back shed isn't it?

Not right now. I've had too much going on to brew lately, and have been really frustrated at the quality I've been getting. Going to try to get back into it, but for now I can't :-/

But just the same, I also think that those that complain so loudly about the patent office would probably feel very differently if it were their intellectual property, invention, or idea being appropriated by someone else without compensation.

A someone who made a living (kind of) for 30 years by writing, copyrighting, and selling music, I have to say I heartily agree with Al. I know that he's involved in the arts, too, so we both have a first hand interest in cases like this.

But just the same, I also think that those that complain so loudly about the patent office would probably feel very differently if it were their intellectual property, invention, or idea being appropriated by someone else without compensation.

A someone who made a living (kind of) for 30 years by writing, copyrighting, and selling music, I have to say I heartily agree with Al. I know that he's involved in the arts, too, so we both have a first hand interest in cases like this.

I don't want to get this into politics or a fight. Just to be clear I agree that people want to protect their work and I agree that they should be able to. The problem with quite a few patents issued today is that they are being issued for things that should be copyrighted not patented. "Look and feel" and software code fall in the area of art not physically built stuff. One example I've seen recently is that many patents today simply describe a concept with no actual design or build evidence to support them. That isn't what patents were for way back in the day. At one time you had to turn over your invention for review to get your patent approved. It seems that has changed.

Like I said, I'm not here to fight and I shouldn't have made the first comment, so I won't say anymore on it.

Tech patents, as opposed to pure invention, are a huge hurdle for innovation. Ever heard of patent trolls? They're leach-like organizations that look for anything software-related that hasn't yet been patented, patent it, and then make money by suing the pants off of the original creator, or charging huge licensing fees.

As a developer, I see every day examples of iterative development. That is, new functionality that's based on previously existing functionality. The number of patents that are being issued for things like 'a button with rounded corners that says "submit"' are ridiculous and are incredibly stifling. A musical parallel for you Denny: Imagine that you wanted to write a song, but Jimmy Page had patented the A minor blues scale, and any notes you used from or in relation to that scale had to be licensed and approved. How horrible would that be?

Patenting is bad. It's an outdated system that tries to apply 18th century strategies to 21st century problems. Copyright of works etc is fine, so long as it is not used to stifle REAL creativity and innovation. The Samsung Galaxy II is not an example of real creativity and innovation, viz. the documentation (revealed in court) passed around by Samsung execs saying, effectively, 'we must do everything Apple is doing.' That's where the 'deliberately attempting to confuse consumers' bit comes in.

BTW I've had this beer several times. It isn't bad. It's a basic corn/rice/malt lager, tasting similar to Bud. If it wasn't more expensive than Bud I would not have a problem having some in my fridge. But then again the nearest fresh craft beer is either a few thousand miles away, or much too expensive for regular every day drinking, between 4 eur and 25 eur/ bottle.

when the Simpson's movie came out a few years back some convenient stores (mostly seven-eleven) sold the beer, I agree with being very similar to bud light.

Logged

“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drank, I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and all of their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, “It is better that I drink this beer and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver.

While on business in Spain last year, during lunch-(2)-hours I drank different beers all the time. One day my English (living in Spain) host said there was a beer at the restraurant from Simpsons. I was thinking the maltster, but when it was presented to me I saw Duff. Having never watched an episode of Simpsons in my life I responded 'Huh?'. I drank it and then found it at the local Eroskis. I found it more akin to a Belgian beer and commented that I pitied the fool who bought the beer because of the Simpsons.

A someone who made a living (kind of) for 30 years by writing, copyrighting, and selling music, I have to say I heartily agree with Al. I know that he's involved in the arts, too, so we both have a first hand interest in cases like this.

Does anyone know if copyright/ patent issues change much across different fields? For example, is fighting copyright infringement extensively different for an musician/artist vs. a software programmer?